"Housing Market Slumps"

GreatApe

GreatApe wrote: »

That is a bad guess, however we do not need to guess we have data that shows annual transactions going back more than 2 decades and if you look at those transactions it clearly shows there was no housing ladder only a housing step even twenty years ago

For instance just reading off a graph it looks like the transactions twenty years ago were about 900,000 homes for a stock of about 20 million private homes (not including social). Thus on average homes were chaining hands roughly once every 22 years.

So if someone bought at age 28, they would buy their second property at age 50 (the housing step) and they would then die in that house.

Actually its likely even less than that as it does not take into account sideways moves, moves for necessity like moving from a 3 bed to a 3 bed a hundred miles away due to job relocation, or selling/buying due to divorce. So it looks most likely that people buy on average less than 2 homes in a lifetime with most homeowners possibly only ever buying one and that holds true today and it held true two decades ago

PS this shows the difference between myself and the crash cheerleaders. I look at data find something interesting and post about it. The cheerleaders go and group think and come back with nonsense to show why i must be wrong without even realizing I am just interpreting actual data

replying to myself as the bears are not pulling their weight.

This is actually even more evidence* to show that property while cheaper in pounds and pence two decades ago was not actually more affordable. If homes were so affordable back then why was there no ladder of people continually buying bigger and better homes? Why where many perhaps most people only buying the one house and sticking with that if prices were so affordable?





*not that it is needed much as plenty of people here post that it was a struggle buying their home x decades ago that £5000 for a house looks cheap today but it wasn't back when they were buying especially when the essentials of life like food and and cloths cost much more in real terms leaving less to be able to be spent on housing.

BikingBud

Nope didn't think you would.

I have been trying to establish for some time your measure of affordability but you stubbornly refuse to provide any indication of what % of your pay you would be willing to contribute. More than this amount would be your judgment of unaffordable and less would be affordable a very simple premise.

Instead we get some bizarre ramblings that I really do have difficulty trying to follow.....

What do you make of my metric, that homes are cheap if the mortgage on said home is cheaper than the local social poor stock? which seems to be the case for more than half the country.

Being cheaper does not make something affordable, extending the term of the mortgage over a 30 year period vice 25 may make it affordable on a weekly or monthly basis but does not make it cheap.

If you will not consider the ONS data that clearly comments upon affordability then I feel any further discussion with you is a lost cause. But i knew that a few weeks ago anyway.
:easter_os

GreatApe

BikingBud wrote: »

Nope didn't think you would.

I have been trying to establish for some time your measure of affordability but you stubbornly refuse to provide any indication of what % of your pay you would be willing to contribute. More than this amount would be your judgment of unaffordable and less would be affordable a very simple premise.

Instead we get some bizarre ramblings that I really do have difficulty trying to follow.....



Being cheaper does not make something affordable, extending the term of the mortgage over a 30 year period vice 25 may make it affordable on a weekly or monthly basis but does not make it cheap.

If you will not consider the ONS data that clearly comments upon affordability then I feel any further discussion with you is a lost cause. But i knew that a few weeks ago anyway.
:easter_os

I had a conversation with the person who wrote that report and he agreed with the idea that just income is not a good metric and that they too plan to try and do something that includes other forms of capital like inheritences wages gifts and so on vs prices

Also the ONS document does not say houses are unaffordable it just shows that prices have increased more than just earnings. Something can be cheap in 1997 and still be cheap in 2017 even if the price in 2017 is higher than in 1997

To you everything is unaffordable you can not even bring yourself to admit the cheapest town in the country is not unaffordable

I have been trying to establish for some time your measure of affordability but you stubbornly refuse to provide any indication of what % of your pay you would be willing to contribute

I would say less than £600pm is cheap which puts the majority of the country at not just affordable but cheap